The Bible, Parts 1(Torah/Old testament), 2(New Testament) and 3(Koran/Book of Mormon/Dianetics) and the Watchtower, in fact all religious texts have changed my life ..
Add to these semi religous "self help" books such as The Celestine Prophecy, The Secret, Anthony Robbins, Deepak Chopra and the like, and although I am no atheist you can also add Dawkins' God Delusion, Marx's Communist Manifesto, Mao's little red book, "The Sun says" and many other doctrinal tracts - these have all changed my life for the worse by by surrounding me with misguided people that can't be bothered to think for themselves.


In short my philosophy is:-

Individual people; fundamentally good

People in Groups, Organisations, Institutions, Clubs, Religions etc; fundamentally evil as the individuals concerned absolve themselves from moral resposibility.

This has been shown by such studies as

Milgram's Study of Obedience en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
and the behaviour of the Nazis and of our large amoral corporations.

I personally believe that there IS a point, a "right path" and in good and evil, however simplistic written rules alone can never get you there.

This may have offended some people - sorry, but although it's not the word of God it's what I believe. You never know, it may change your life!!


_{"Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups." despair.com/idiocy.html
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." Don Marquis
Just to contradict myself I do like Persig's Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Hesse's Siddartha!}


Luvya!
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:07, 35 replies)

...
What, exactly, do you mean by"fundamentally good" and "fundamentally evil"?

(I'm guessing that you've not read most of those things mentioned in your list...)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:10, closed)

The Milgram Experiment
Mental. Utterly mental.

I've actually just been revising it for an exam.

"Kill him, go on, do it." Essentially.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:11, closed)

Oooooo
Go on Enzyme, get stuck in, I can sense a poorly thought out argument due for good going over!
(Bazongaloid, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:15, closed)

The point is I can't explain the difference between Good and Evil in words
I just know.

Do you? (If so what is it)

PS, I've read or tried to read the books mentioned.
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:17, closed)

*ducks*
*and covers*
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:18, closed)

*Joins CHCB beneath the covers*

(Bazongaloid, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:21, closed)

Hmm
*awaits well thought out, structured and eloquent reply....*
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:21, closed)

*Hums Ribena Banana to pass time*

(Bazongaloid, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:23, closed)

^^
Ha! I actually saw a poster for a performance of Carmina Burana in Prague and thought of Enzyme. I then got slightly worried, and quicky switched my attention to some attractive Czech ladies.
( Boss Keloid Got your mother's maiden name tattooed on my arm, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:26, closed)

yeah
I saw some porn and I thought of Enz-I'll shut up now
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:29, closed)

What a weird coincidence
I was looking at some enzymes in a textbook when I started thinking about porn.

It's been a while you see.

what?
(Bazongaloid, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:30, closed)

@jmaxi
Ahhh... so you admit that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, but it doesn't occur to you that that might be an impediment to saying something meaningful. (Look at it this way: why should we take seriously a claim that all x is y when you aren't willing to tell us what that y is? Your claim is empty.)

Whether or not I can give a satisfactory account of "good" and "evil" - assuming that the words are all that meaningful to begin with - is irrelevant to the fact that you're talking tosh.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:32, closed)

*winces*
ooooooooooo.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:34, closed)

'zyme, it's a matter of faith,
but I'd rather place my faith in a "Good Samaritan" stranger rather than an employee "doing things by the book" to do the right thing.

(assuming that "right" has any meaning other than the opposite of left)
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:38, closed)

@jmaxi
But that doesn't answer the point.

Look: if you're going to make sweeping assertions along the lines that all individuals are basically good and all groups are basically evil, you're either going to have to provide some evidence, or to show that your claim follows as a matter of logical necessity. Either way, though, you're going to need evidence. And that evidence is going to be pretty hard to come by unless you can give an account of what "good" and "evil" are, since you won't know what you're looking for.

One might also want to know what the boundary conditions are: how many people have to be in a room before they become evil? Two? Or more? Would two people in a room be good, or just indifferent? Would two people enjoying a quiet pint become evil because it's something they're doing as a group?

Additionally, one might want to know how absolving oneself from moral resposibility equates with evil, and how the Zalbardo and Milgram experiments, with their particular conditions, extrapolate to humanity as a whole.

Oh, and while we're at it, what does the phrase "my philosophy" mean? Speaking as a professional philosopher, I'd love it if I could get paid for saying whatever crossed the expnase of my apparently-empty mind. There's more to it than that. No, really. There is.

I think I'll stop and go for a cup of tea now.


EDIT: No I won't.
What do you mean by "faith"? You're treating it as an innoculation against thought...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:47, closed)

*adds Enzyme to Unnoficial B3ta Heroes List*
EDIT: while I'm on the subject:

Enzyme!

I am very interested in Philosophy, and would like to find out more.

However, I know not where to start. Could you recommend any good books to me? I have got a copy of 'Think' by Simon Blackburn already, the person in the shop said it might be a good place to start.

I hope you can help, and if you can't then why not? :)
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 16 May 2008, 11:56, closed)

DiT -
I'll have a think and gaz you. Think is not something I've read, but Blackburn is reliable and it seems like a good place to start. AC Grayling, too, has some pretty readable and straightforward stuff. Nagel's Mortal Questions is something I used to throw at freshers - it's based on published articles, so presupposes some knowledge, but the leap for the newcomer is not all that great - you should be able to fill in the gaps. If it's philosophy of mind that interests you, Dan O'Brien's An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge is supposed to be good - not my field, but I know Dan and the book has good reviews.

Russell's Probms of Philosophy is showing its age, but is very accessible; Baggini's What Philosophers Think and What More Philosophers Think represent quite a good tasting-menu...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 12:16, closed)

Enzyme...
Thanks!

*bows deep*
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 16 May 2008, 12:19, closed)

Not getting paid for what crosses my mind, though I do get paid to think!
Though my housemate is a professional philosopher.

Can you use personal qualifications in an argument or does that mean you've lost already!? ;o) I will ask.

It's good that you try to make me justify my position, my point being that I don't just turn around and say "It's in the book and the book is RIGHT"

I do use the word faith, however I do not mean blind faith, my faith is reached through asking questions until reaching an understanding that I can choose to believe that It's all a big fluke/cockup and live a wasteful self centred hedonistic life or to believe in Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, Nice/Nasty etc. ie aesthetics and that the latter makes me a damn sight happier than the former!

My point is it's good to think rather than depend on received wisdom otherwise there is no progression.

_{Hi to the Enzyme fan club!}
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 12:37, closed)

*wearily*
Okay, so you look at different books and experiments and you pick the bits you think are right and you build yourself a 'philosophy'. You can't prove it though; I think that's why people are kneejerkingly yelling "Noooooo".

Essentially, you refer to "misguided people that can't be bothered to think for themselves" but you don't show any evidence of how your thinking is any better/superior than theirs. How is your thinking better than the received wisdom you refer to? Does the mere act of thinking make you better, even if what you think is crap, purely because you did something more active than read it?

(Not part of the Enzyme fan club, just grooming him over teh Interweb.)
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Fri 16 May 2008, 12:44, closed)

@jmaxi
First of all - your point about personal qualifications. It's a cheap shot, I'll admit it. Still, there's more to philosophy than simply expostulating. Hence the use of the term "my philosophy" is as senseless as the term "my physics". You can't help yourself to waffle and call it philosophy just because most people don't have the wherewithal to argue the toss.

Justifying your position - even defending it - can come later. I'm still trying to make sense of what it is, though - and whether you have one at all. Waving vaguely at Milgram and saying "Wooooo! Corporations!" simply won't cut it. (Incidentally, why associate corporations with amorality? A businessman has certain duties - to himself, to his shareholders, to society, and so on. That he pursues profit isn't a dereliction of duty; the question is not whether he should do the right thing, as what the right thing is.)

You write:
"I do use the word faith, however I do not mean blind faith, my faith is reached through asking questions until reaching an understanding that I can choose to believe that It's all a big fluke/cockup and live a wasteful self centred hedonistic life or to believe in Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, Nice/Nasty etc. ie aesthetics and that the latter makes me a damn sight happier than the former!"

I don't understand this point about choosing to believe. I don't see what choice has to do with anything. There are certain things that we might be forced to believe or reject - on pain of incoherence for example. Choice doesn't really enter the question. If something is true, then we ought to believe it. If not, not. No choice.

Your stuff from "It's all a big fluke..." to "... than the former!" doesn't make any sense at all. What are you saying? (Note that if your happiness is the criterion by which you judge things, then you're being exactly the hedonist - and the self-centred hedonist at that - that you claim to reject. Note, too, that to base any kind of claim about morality on an appeal to happiness is to embrace hedonism.)

You are right to say that it's good to think. Who could possibly gainsay that? I'm puzzzled about what you mean by "progression", though. To what? Judged by what standard?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 12:51, closed)

@ Devil_in_Tights
One book that I really enjoyed and gave me a greater idea of where all the major philosophers fitted into history was Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World.

I recommend that to Fine Art undergrads who have never really come across philosophy before.



Enzyme...I think I love you.
Not because you're taking the OP apart, but because you break down the argument into the basic building blocks of understanding.

In my opinion everyone should be taught philosophy from the age of seven onwards. Why seven? Because according to Piaget and other educational experts from the age of seven children are capable of abstract, non-concrete thought.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Fri 16 May 2008, 13:44, closed)

@chickenlady
Why, thank you. I'd avoid Sophie's World, actually. I dipped back into it a couple of years ago and found myself screaming, "NO! NO! NO! That's not what (insert name here) is on about AT ALL!"
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 13:46, closed)

@Chickenlady
you'll have to fight CHCB for him, she's already been grooming him for a while now.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 16 May 2008, 13:50, closed)

Sophie's World
Admittedly I did read it years ago...but I thoroughly enjoyed it....but the philosophers are used as a literary device so I would guess that this is the reason for so many of their theories are....not entirely accurate.

I still think though, as a first introduction for children or young adults it does the job.

My first intro to philosophy was Politics A level - a rather pompous monk (who had recently graduated from seminary college) gave us a philosopher a week. Yes, one week for Machiavelli - we started with him, one week for Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Hume, Marx, and others whom now are consigned to the outer reaches of my memory.

I hated philosophy and avoided it until I did a Fine Art degree...then discovered I needed it.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Fri 16 May 2008, 14:11, closed)

@ Al
It's okay...I love Enzyme in a purely intellectual capacity. In much the same way that I love you, Bert and Kaol in a purely perverted capacity.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Fri 16 May 2008, 14:13, closed)

@Chickenlady
Hume is ace. Like a favourite uncle.


Can't you try to love me in a pervy capacity as well?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 14:18, closed)

My thinking is no better/worse than any other's
'aint on on pedastal'
am definately not qualified, no Priest or Philosopher me.
I'm not the messiah, I'm a naughty boy!

But thought is better than blindly following rules.
We should use the gifts we are given I think (therefore I am)

I'm not saying what is better or worse, just that there is and it's not in a book or a club.

We are all riding consciousness, the chaos between now and next, building fractal models of the universe in our heads containing other people with models of their universe in their heads.

It's just a ride.

_{soz - back from the pub rant}
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 14:33, closed)

@jmaxi
Er... You forgot to add "maaaaaan..."


*wibbles*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 14:40, closed)

ta for the lessons.
'zyme, you can believe that everything that makes people happy is down to biology/society/conditioning and that everything is motivated by self interest and the desire to be happy (even altruism), and society/the sefish gene's desire to propogate and everyone that seeks such happiness is a headonist or you can believe that there is a point to all life and all things and a path to fulfillment without even needing to know what the point is.

You mention " Hence the use of the term "my philosophy" is as senseless as the term "my physics". "

I should have used the term "my belief", which is definately subjective, though it is interesting that you believe philosophy is universal - as a physicist our current laws of physics are subjective. Imagine watching your friend depart at light speed. Who ages from who's perspective?

Does Philosophy have a point apart from Philosophy?

not sayin you is thick - will still think you're the cleverest on th board, but do you agree with me or not? Are you a religious man, maaaaan?
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 15:13, closed)

@jmaxi
Not in the slightest bit religious.

You're wrong about physics: the world would appear to be relativistic, but that's not the same as subjective. It's definitely relativistic, if you see what I mean - it wouldn't be any different according to what we believe about it.

What makes people happy is irrelevant to the conversation we've been having, isn't it? Or have I missed something? It's certainly got nowt to do with any Banyan-tree-hugging "meaning of life" shizzle...

As it happens, though, I don't think that people really want to think that there's a point to life. Imagine that god appeared at the end of your bed and told you what you were for. Wouldn't that be the worst possible thing? Wouldn't it be utterly crushing?

As to the point of philosophy: well, if you want to know whether cloning or euthanasia should be allowed (no reason why not, and yes, btw), or if you want to figure out how the mind, language and the world interrelate (dunno - not my field), a philosopher would seem to be the person for you... so, though I dislike saying that it's useful... it is.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 16 May 2008, 15:30, closed)

Does Philosophy have a point apart from Philosophy?
*Stunned silence*





*Still stunned silence*






Philosophy is thinking and how to think.

Well, how to think could arguable be called logic, but that's neither here nor there for now

I know we're all part of the ape family, we're all just mammals

and who's to say that mammals or any living beings for that matter, don't think deeply about things?

But...but....every single thing we do has been thought about.

Someone thought it out.

Even the basic needs.

I don't mean the whole Intelligent Design thing - I'm not getting at God/Whoever having thought about us.

What I mean is that our every day existence - how we live today has been considered.

Love, war, peace, anger, men, women, children, truth, memory, knowledge, education, religion, science

everthing.

*Head asplodes*


( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Fri 16 May 2008, 15:44, closed)

chickenlady
Of course I believe philosophy has a point.

That is the whole point of my original post!

Arse headsplodes!

And...

If everything we do has been thought about and everything we think has been thunk before..

like a playwright imagines the thoughts and actions of their characters.

are they not still our thoughts, even though some other entity is thinking them?
Does it matter when they were thought and would now be then?

Maybe we are God's imagination. Maybe God is ours.
(jmaxi returned again on, Fri 16 May 2008, 15:49, closed)

Wow. The original post is a load of vapid cock, and Enzyme's reply is also vapid cock. And I just read it. /kills self.
(Emily Bruce-Dickinson http://jovialfellow.blogspot.com/, Fri 16 May 2008, 23:27, closed)

Just a few things.
The whole Milgram experement, whilst a hugly important study, has lost a lot of relevence. It was carried out in America, during the cold war, a period when people were a lot more obeying to authority. The fact that it took place in a respected university also supposedly caused people to assume the safty of the students.

Your point about people in groups isn't necicarly bad, annonimity tends to lead people to act in a more selfish way (could be interpereted as evil).

For my money, the best evidence of groups being moraly wrong comes from in groups and outgroups. These are best illustrated by things like football. Its usualy clear who belongs to which group, making clear boundries. People can hate the outher group based on who they support, despite few actual differences. This applies to nationality, gender, race, you name it. The best thing is that these are usualy interlapping groups. You may hate blacks, but when they support your team you love them.

The obvious criticism of this is that it dosen't apply to every one, which raises the question, is the group corrupring people, or is it simply putting a cloak over them, allowing them to express the pre-existing anger below the surface? (Clue: its the latter.)
(Mong goose, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:22, closed)